slimboyfat:
Proverbs 8:22 is a well-known mistranslation in the LXX, the correspondent Hebrew verb here (qanah) doesn't mean "create", but "acquire", "buy," "possess", "have" etc. It's well translated by ancient Bible translators like Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Jerome. The Christian in the first centuries were aware of the only the original text can be regarded as inspired, a translation is just a translation, an interpretation, which can be even unintentionally wrong. That's why Jerome hasn't translated the Vulgate from the LXX into Latin, but directly from the Hebrew. Not a big surprise the NWT follows a bad translation. Check:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm
Neither "the firstborn [prōtótokos] of all creation" nor "the beginning [arkhé] of God's creation" PROVE that the Son is the first created being, since grammatically this is not a necessary, but only a POSSIBLE interpretation of this text, which is clearly excluded by other scriptural statements.
Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn [prōtótokos] of all creation" (literal translation)
If we want to free the passage from the possessive structure, it could be interpreted as: "the firstborn over all creation." The Watchtower arbitrarily clarifies this ambiguity. The Greek prototokos = firstborn: here it means superiority and eternal preexistence, not the first creation. He is the distinguished heir to everything that has been created. We need to start from the meaning of "universal heir, main heir," who, due to his origin, owns everything that the Father has created.
According to the Old Testament legal conception, the firstborn, as the future head of the family, has a special position in the family and receives a larger share of the inheritance than the other children. The use of language in the Old Testament is instructive. David is called the firstborn in Psalm 89:27, not because he was literally Jesse's first child (since he was the youngest), but to symbolize the power of Israel's kingdom.David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. The Watchtower understands this with regard to that verse:
David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. The Watchtower understands this with regard to that verse:
„David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preminent position in God's chosen nation.”
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)
Similarly, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, although Manasseh was chronologically the first (Genesis 41:50-52). God called the nation of Israel "my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22). So when Jehovah says, "I will make him my firstborn" (Psalm 89:28), he is actually calling a later-born son (David) the firstborn, meaning not a temporal dignity, but a title indicating dignity. Similarly, when God called Israel as a nation his own firstborn (Exodus 4:22), he obviously did not mean it chronologically, because Isaac's firstborn was not Israel, but Esau. Moreover, Israel was Jehovah's firstborn, even though it was not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9).
It is therefore undeniable that the apostle here wants to express the primacy of the firstborn over the creatures. But that Christ is not included among the creatures is evident from the following.
Jewish rabbinical writers called the God (the Father) as Bekorah Shelolam, which means exactly the same as what Paul used here: the firstborn of all creation. By the way, the Father does not need to be called the firstborn over all creation, because He was not born. The Holy Spirit was not born either but proceeded. However, Jesus still came into the world of creation as an heir (Hebrews 1:2), not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The prototokos appears in Hebrews 1:6 as a title for Jesus. However, in the context, Jesus is depicted as the Almighty (1:3), the radiance of God's glory (and his image) (1:3), the Creator (1:10), worthy of worship (1:6), and called God by the Father (1:8). These characteristics can only apply to God.
Revelations 3:14 "the beginning [arkhé] of God's creation"
The correspondent Greek word here (arkhé) does NOT mean "beginning or beginner in time", but "origin", "source of action", of "first principle". No contemporary Greek-speaking reader would interpret this verse like the JWs do, since arkhé was a well-known term back then.
The arché from which the English word architect (= architect) is derived. According to scholars of the Greek language, its literal meaning is: origin, causation, source, uncreated principle. Therefore, Jesus is the architect, or the Creator of the Universe, as made clear in Col 1:16-17. He was in the beginning (arkhé) with the Father (Jn 1:2; Heb 1:10). He created every creature, and he was before every creature, so He himself could not be a creature (a created entity). In Rev 1:8 (often rendered as Alpha) and 21:6 (cf. Is 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), the arcké is applied to the Almighty God, so it is not possible that it means a created being, as claimed by groups like JWs influenced by Arianism. A similar terminology (first and last, Alpha and Omega) also refers to Jesus: Rev 1:17-18; 2:8; 3:14, and 22:13.16. Therefore, both the Father and the Son are fully God.
The "beginning of God's creation" does not mean that he is a creature. For in Him, everything was created, without Him, nothing came into being that has come into being, and He was in the beginning, not in the beginning created. The "arkhé" signifies power, dominion, rule, and principle. We find the meaning of "power" in many places in the New Testament. The beginning (arkhé) is also called powers (e.g., Eph 1:21, Col 2:10), as well as the beginning point in time. Neither usage implies that what is called the beginning is part of what it is the beginning of. On the contrary, we know from elsewhere that everything was created in Him, without Him nothing came into being, etc. Here, it is not a temporal beginning - if you look at the context, it is about Jesus' office and dignity, not his age. According to this, the beginning is of creation, not of the Son.
Here, it rather says that the Son is the origin, cause, (primordial) source, fountainhead, uncreated principle, or beginning of creation because everything was created through the Son, without Him nothing came into being that has come into being; and everything in heaven and on earth was created in Him, everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything is held together in Him.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)
On the other hand, it helps to understand the verse and the meaning of the word "beginning" (αρχη) if you compare it, for example, with how Col 1:18 speaks of Jesus:
"He is the beginning…"
Furthermore:
"I am coming soon, and my reward is with me, to repay everyone for what they have done. I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Rev 22:12-13)
The same word "beginning" (αρχη) is used in the Bible for the Father in Rev 21:6, so αρχη obviously does not mean a creature.
It is also worth noting that, just like the concept of Logos, arkhé has its own precedent in Greek philosophy.
Ancient Greek philosophers called the arkhé the primal principle, primal cause, to which they always traced the origin of things, i.e., from which the world is built, i.e., what is the beginning of the world. Thus, the "arkhé" is the principle from which the cosmos originates. The New Testament writers adopted these Greek concepts and filled them with new content: according to Christian teaching, 'the beginning' or 'arkhé' of the created world is the Godhead, which includes the Son as well.
Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). Indeed, he declares that he created everything, and without him nothing came into being that came into being It follows logically from all of this that it cannot belong to the created, became things, so it cannot be the "first creature" either. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with his own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13 , Psalm 95:5-6). Creation is the work of God alone and directly. Another question is whether God is more than Father: He is also Son, and when God created, then the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit created.
The fact that Christians considered the Son to be God and uncreated long before the Arian controversy can be well supported by contemporary sources, including the writings of the apostolic fathers.
The formulation of John 1:1a "In the beginning was the Word..." (as opposed to "became", or "is created", or "came to be", as in John 1:3) was an important reference during the Arian controversy, since Arius asserted that the Son was a perfect creature, at most a kind of demigod subordinated to the Father. Arius insisted ‘there was when he [the Logos] was not.’ The opponents of the Arianism pointed out that according to John 1:1a the Son "in the beginning" already "was", not became, and consequently is not a creature, and did not come into existence in time, but is eternal like the Father.
In order to condemn Arianism, the First Council of Nicaea formalized the creed, according to which the Son is "begotten from the Father before all ages (æons), Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father". At the same time, the synod anathemized those, who say 'There was a time when He was not;' or 'He was not before he was made;' or 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'.
Can it be considered "late" that this was dogmatized "only" in 325? Well, this just proves that it was simply not an issue before Arius came along. But this reproach is hypocritical on the part of a denomination that did not even exist until the end of the 19th century, and whose basic doctrines were only developed decades later, such as two-class salvation theory only in 1935
